The Urgency of Imaginative Naga Political Form

THE HISTORICAL and political rights of the Nagas, to mention a few, Naga Memorandum to Simon Commission, 1929, declaration of Naga Independence by the Naga National Council, 1947 and, Naga Plebiscite, 1951, are our foundational identity—the very soul of our existence. Their survival is not in question, regardless of claims that “Naga sovereignty” has been compromised in accordance with contemporary realities. The truth is this: sovereignty is not lost; it is only constrained by our perception. If we, Nagas, continue to limit ourselves within rigid constructs, sovereignty will remain an abstraction rather than a lived political reality.

Thus, as I have often stated, “without obliterating the historical and political rights, we must initiate constructive nationalism without delay.” Idealistic nationalism, without a fitting political form, remains detached from practical realities. Unfortunately, Nagas have either been naively idealistic or intellectually constrained—unable to see beyond the Westphalian Treaty of 1648. The backward-looking historical view has stalled our forward movement, appearing in various forms: from narratives that rationalize one’s correctness to myths of “othering” that serve no real purpose.

Also read | The Long Road to Naga Reconciliation: A Personal Reflection

Additionally, our political complexities—shaped by ancestral village pride, sovereign traditions, and communal rigidity—severely hinder collective progress. The dominant geopolitical forces surrounding us further exacerbate these challenges. Therefore, the time has come for Nagas to rethink their political approaches and pursue pragmatic, imaginative ordering—ones that uphold our historical and political rights without delay. This pragmatic approach should not be viewed as a compromise/betrayal of the Naga cause but a creative response that adapts to the challenges and opportunities, allowing the reconstruction of meaningful peoplehood in the twenty-first century. This is also what most indigenous and politically marginalized communities in the world are doing. 

Crucially, Nagas are not compromising Naga sovereignty but recognizing the existential necessity of building a bridge to reach the goal. This bridge is not our political solution in itself, but that “ordering” is rather a “trust relationship”—a foundation upon which true political resolution can be realized. Without trust, reconciliation and collaboration remain mere concepts, not active forces of transformation.  

Naga politics suffers from internal conflicts, factionalism, and a culture of individual correctness. The prevailing tendency to protect self-interests, village pride, and communal divisions has eroded the potential for collective vision and coordinated action. Worse still, the defensive and reactive approach has led to political stagnation rather than meaningful transformation. This rigid stance not only undermines the ecology of Naga cooperation but also exposes our vulnerabilities to external pressures. If left unchecked, this culture is insidiously self-destructive.

Rather than being shaped by dominant geopolitical powers, Nagas must harness their unique historical and cultural strengths to build a model that reflects contemporary realities. We can engage with India not as passive recipients but as active architects of a fitting political ordering—one that empowers both sides. If executed properly, the Naga-Indo political model could serve as a groundbreaking precedent for ethnic political frameworks globally, particularly in this postmodern era.

In this endeavour, we must recognize the importance of marginalized communities in shaping new political realities. The power of the marginalized is not merely symbolic—it is transformative when mobilized strategically. The Nagas must realize that shifting geopolitical realities provide opportunities to initiate an inclusive political dialogue that challenges idealistic notions of sovereignty.

William MacAskill’s concept of “long-termism” offers valuable guidance. Instead of focusing on short-term gains and fragmented agendas, we must prioritize sustainability and resilience. Political vision should not be pressured by history alone but driven by adaptability and innovation—the call for crafting the praxis of a dialogical nationalism. We must shift from “how to solve” the Naga political issue to “resolving” it—ensuring that reconciliation, institutional guarantees, and inclusive governance form the backbone of political transformation.

At this critical juncture, what Nagas need is not more ideological debate, but institutional mechanisms that ensure implementation. A collaborative framework between Nagas and the Government of India should be established without further delay. This structure must uphold human rights, reject intolerance and hatred, and foster political evolution.

Also read | A Naga Father’s Plea: End The Silence That Kills

The decades of political uncertainty should have matured our understanding of global geopolitics. Clinging to past policies and rigid group structures will only hinder progress. Now is the time to redefine our political order—not just externally, but within ourselves.

I humbly call upon Naga conscientious fellows and non-Nagas in critical solidarity to join in forging a transformative political path—one anchored in common humanity, mutual respect, and collective empathy. Let us move forward not with hesitation, but with unwavering resolve.

The author is Emeritus Professor of Constructive Theology and Philosophy, Oriental Theological Seminary. Views are personal.

(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ukhrul Times. Ukhrul Times values and encourages diverse perspectives.)